Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikram Singh vs Virendra Singh (2023/Rjjd/015984) on 17 May, 2023
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/015984]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6671/2023
Vikram Singh S/o Shri Heera Singh, Aged About 73 Years, By
Caste Rajput, Resident Of Hotel Place View Lal Garh Palace
Parisar, Bikaner (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Virendra Singh S/o Sh. Harpreet Singh, B/c Sikh, R/o
Gangauwala, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar
2. Chhinder Singh S/o Sh. Surjan Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o
Village Kaliya, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar
3. Gurmeet Singh S/o Sh. Gur Pratap Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/
o Chak 3 E Chhoti, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar
Through Power Of Attorney Holder Maninder Singh Maan
S/o Gur Pratap Singh B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 3 E Chhoti,
Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar
4. Maninder Singh Maan S/o Gur Pratap Singh, B/c Jat Sikh,
R/o Chak 3 E Chhoti, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar
5. Devi Singh S/o Sh. Ganpat Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Vishnu
Bhojnalaya, Near Bishnoi Dharmshala, Public Park,
Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishank Madan
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 17/05/2023
1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-
I- that the Order dated 27.04.2023 Ann.10 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
II- That the application of the petitioner Ann.7 may kindly be allowed with all consequential relief; III- by an appropriate writ, order or direction the entire proceedings pending before the Rent Control Tribunal, Bikaner in Case No.195/2015 (81/2007) Virendra Singh & ors Vs. Devi Singh & Anr. may kindly be quashed being illegal with all consequential relief;(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 12:39:48 AM)
[2023/RJJD/015984] (2 of 10) [CW-6671/2023] IV- Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
V- Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.3, Bikaner (in short, 'learned Court below') against one Smt. Madhuri Singh and other persons; wherein the learned Court below had passed an interim order dated 24.10.2007, directing the defendants therein that they shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner, in regard to the property in question, and that, the property in question shall not be alienated, as it was not proved that the petitioner was an encroacher over the property in question. 2.1. Further, defendant-Smt. Madhuri Singh, during pendency of the aforementioned suit, however, sold the property in question to the respondents no. 1 to 4 herein. The said respondents, claiming themselves to be the landlord of the property in question, filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2001') against the respondent no.5-Devi Singh i.e. Tenant and the present petitioner, before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner (in short, 'the learned Tribunal').
2.2. The petitioner and respondent no.5, however, in the aforementioned application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 12:39:48 AM) [2023/RJJD/015984] (3 of 10) [CW-6671/2023] filed a reply and denied the landlord and tenant relationship as claimed by the respondent no.1 to 4.
2.3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid proceedings pending before the learned Tribunal, by way of preferring S.B.C.W.P. No.4224/2023 before this Hon'ble Court; however, vide order dated 12.04.2023 passed by this Court, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition, if so required. 2.4. The petitioner had also filed an application before the learned Tribunal stating therein that the civil suit preferred by the petitioner was already sub-judice before the learned Court below, wherein the applicants (respondent no.1 to 4 herein) were the defendants, and that, the aforementioned interim order passed prior to filing of the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was also in currency; it was thus prayed in the application preferred by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal that further proceedings in the said application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 may be stayed.
2.4.1. The learned Tribunal however, vide the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 rejected the aforesaid application preferred by the petitioner, and kept the matter for final arguments on 03.05.2023.
2.5. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the after passing of the interim order dated 24.10.2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track no.3, Bikaner, and the main (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 12:39:48 AM) [2023/RJJD/015984] (4 of 10) [CW-6671/2023] suit itself is pending; thus, in view of the same, the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 filed by the respondents no.1 to 4 before the learned Tribunal was not maintainable. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the interim order dated 24.10.2007 clearly restrained, amongst others, the alienation of the property in question, and thus, the act of Smt. Madhuri Singh in selling the property in question to the respondents no.1 to 4 was not permissible under the law, being a clear non-compliance of the said interim order of the learned Court below. In furtherance, it was asserted that the sale deed in relation to sale of the property in question by Smt. Madhuri Singh was void being contrary to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; thus, on that count also, the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, as preferred by the respondents no.1 to 4 was not maintainable.
3.2. Learned counsel also submits that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, as claimed by the respondents no.1 to 4 in the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001, and that, the concept of ownership was also not involved in the case; therefore, as per learned counsel, the proceedings, at the instance of the respondents no.1 to 4, pending before the learned Tribunal, are clearly not sustainable in the eye of law.
3.3. Learned counsel also submits that in case the application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 is allowed and the eviction order is passed, then in view of the aforementioned interim order having been passed by the learned Court below, a situation shall (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 12:39:48 AM) [2023/RJJD/015984] (5 of 10) [CW-6671/2023] arise which would be against the judicial propriety, as it would also result in further legal complications and multiplicity of litigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the proceedings pending before the learned Tribunal are completely different and independent of the suit instituted by the petitioner before the learned Court below.
4.1. Learned counsel further submits that in the application under Section 9 of the Act, 2001, it was clearly stated, with substantial proof, that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent no. 1 to 4 and non-petitioner no.5- Devi Singh. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the interference of any third party (present petitioner) was not at all permissible under the law. 4.2 As regards the issue raised by the petitioner, that in case, eviction order is passed by the learned Tribunal, the same, in view of the aforementioned interim order of the learned Court below, would create further legal complications and result into multiplicity of litigation, it was submitted, to thwart the same, that the present petitioner himself is trying to create such an unwarranted situation, more particularly, being a third party, who has no right, under the law, to make any interference in the proceedings pending before the learned Tribunal.
4.3. In furtherance, it was asserted that in the property in question the petitioner was acting as an agent and not as a tenant, and thus, there was also no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents no.1 to 4. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 12:39:48 AM) [2023/RJJD/015984] (6 of 10) [CW-6671/2023]
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the respondents no. 1 to 4 filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 against the respondent no.5-Devi Singh and subsequently the present petitioner was added as party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before learned Tribunal. This Court further observes that the aforementioned suit, which was instituted by the petitioner is pending before the Additional District Judge, Bikaner.
7. This Court also observes that the petitioner has also filed an application seeking stay of the proceedings in the eviction petition before the learned Tribunal, on the ground that the main suit was still sub judice before the learned Court below, and that, there was no landlord-tenant relationship subsisting between the parties to the case before the learned Tribuinal; however, the said application was rejected by the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order 27.04.2023.
8. This Court further observes that the respondents no. 1 to 4 are landlord of the property in question in pursuance of the sale deed executed by Smt. Madhuri Singh in their favour and they filed an eviction petition before the learned Tribunal against the original tenant, and that, for maintainability of the eviction petition, the only pre-requisite is the landlord-tenant relationship between the concerned parties, which is subsisting in the eviction case in question; thus, the interference of any third party in the said case is not at all warranted and permissible under the law. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 12:39:48 AM) [2023/RJJD/015984] (7 of 10) [CW-6671/2023]
9. In the given factual matrix of the case and the issue involved herein, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Manish Vs Raj Kumar (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7131- 7133/2022, decided on 16.05.2023), as hereunder:-
"9. This Court further observes that the Act of 2001 was enacted with the aim and object, "to provide for control of eviction from, letting of, and rents for, certain premises in the State of Rajasthan and matters incidental thereto"; the whole purpose and intent of the legislature behind such enactment is to protect the rights of the landlord and tenant, and that, only landlord and tenant are covered therein in case any dispute arises between them under Act of 2001; no third party rights can be created under the dispute, as per the said enactment. This Court also observes that the legislature enacted the Act of 2001 and established the Rent Tribunals and Appellant Rent Tribunals for the purpose of expeditious and lawful resolution of the dispute between landlord and tenant, and therefore, involvement/impleadment of any third party in a case pertaining to the dispute between the landlord and the tenant is not permissible under the law.
11. This Court also observes that the impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC deserves to be accepted, only when the concerned person is a necessary party, in whose absence, effective adjudication of the case would not be possible; however, in the present case, the eviction litigation is going on between the respondent no.1 (original landlord) and respondent no.2 (original tenant) under the Act of 2001 before the learned Tribunal, in respect of the premises in question, let out on rent in the year 2000; the same clearly reveals the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2; the petitioner premises are situated at some different location, and thus, once he could not substantially establish that he was the sub-tenant in the premises in question, the petitioner could not be termed as a sub-tenant, so as to fall within the definition of the term 'necessary party'.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 12:39:48 AM)
[2023/RJJD/015984] (8 of 10) [CW-6671/2023]
12. This Court also considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs Naba kumar Das & Ors (2018) 2 SCC 352, as follows:
"11. There are some well-settled principles of law on the question involved in this appeal, which need to be taken into consideration while deciding the question arose in this appeal. These principles are mentioned infra.
12. First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant(Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties.
13. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant.
14. Second, the landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the plaintiff-landlord has sought defendant's-tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, eviction suit succeeds.
15. Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds.
16. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. (See-Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal, 1995(6) SCC 580).
17. Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 12:39:48 AM) [2023/RJJD/015984] (9 of 10) [CW-6671/2023] that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively.
18. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. (See-Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee & Anr., 2005(8) SCC 140)
19. Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. (See-Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 786)
20. Sixth, if there are co-owners or co-landlords of the suit premises then any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary that all the owners/ landlords should join in filing the eviction suit against the tenant. (See-Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & Ors. vs. M. Chinniyan & Anr., 2016(3) SCC 296)."
13. This Court further observes that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & Ors. (Supra) has held that, "First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant(Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties". Therefore, the impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC can be held to be valid, so as to hold ground and warrant acceptance thereof, in an eviction litigation going on under the Act of 2001, only when it is proved that there exists a relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff (seeking eviction) and the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 12:39:48 AM) [2023/RJJD/015984] (10 of 10) [CW-6671/2023] applicant (seeking impleadment in the case), as substantiated by the settled proposition of law.
15. In view of the above and in light of the judgment rendered in Kanaklata Das & Ors. (Supra) as well as looking into the legislative intent and object behind the enactment of the Act of 2001, so also taking into due consideration the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petitions.
16. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of."
10. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the firm opinion that the proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 before the learned Tribunal by the respondents no.1 to 4 and the suit instituted by the petitioner before the learned Court below are separate and independent from each other, and thus, the challenge to the impugned order as laid by the petitioner herein on the aforesaid counts cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. Thus, in light of the above observations and keeping in view the judgment rendered in the case of Manish (Supra) as also looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition.
12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
63-SKant/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 12:39:48 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)